Wikipedia
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| ColonelPanik Jan 27, 2009 3:22 PM EDT |
Early days of this whole collaborative stuff. Changes need to be made, decisions reviewed. It is a learning process, lets learn? |
| Sander_Marechal Jan 27, 2009 8:28 PM EDT |
It's about time too. Just look at the FOSS development model as opposed to Wikipedia's current (past?) practice. The FOSS model leads to great software because (a) everyone can contribute and (b) every patch is extensively and openly reviewed before being put in the repository. Wikipedia only does (a) and not (b). |
| Scott_Ruecker Jan 27, 2009 8:47 PM EDT |
They did it that way so that "we" would do all the work, now that it is "done", its time to refine and edit it for accuracy and such. |
| ColonelPanik Jan 27, 2009 9:00 PM EDT |
Thats fine. Wikipedia is one hell of a reference source. If it can get better (more accurate) and still grow it doesn't matter to me how they do it. |
| gus3 Jan 27, 2009 9:44 PM EDT |
@Sander: I disagree with your (b). Not every patch gets the review it needs by a knowledgeable party, viz. the Debian OpenSSL compromise. I may examine a patch for a crypto algorithm, and Bruce Schneier may examine the same patch. Whose analysis of it would you trust more? The same goes for Wikipedia. Edits need to be reviewed by parties that actually understand the topics at hand. |
| jdixon Jan 27, 2009 9:47 PM EDT |
> ...now that it is "done", its time to refine and edit it for accuracy and such. Hey, at least they're not trying to pull a CDDB stunt. |
| Scott_Ruecker Jan 27, 2009 10:20 PM EDT |
Quoting:Edits need to be reviewed by parties that actually understand the topics at hand. Now that's an idea. If Wikipedia was edited for accuracy like that, say by known experts in their respective fields, Wikipedia would become the ONLY reference ever used... |
| flufferbeer Jan 27, 2009 10:39 PM EDT |
@Scott_Ruecker, I'd agree, and FWIW also think that the a much better editing process would encourage many more online researchers to consult original source material rather than web-only blog-type material. Some renown classic printed references I've used in the past which have been composed with an indisputably _ENORMOUS_ amount of expertise in their edited contents are the Encyclopedia Britannica and the multiset Oxford English Dictionary of the English Language, aka, the OED. Hopefully, no argument there. |
| Scott_Ruecker Jan 27, 2009 10:53 PM EDT |
The Encyclopedia Britannica holds a special place in my heart. My Mother bought the Encyclopedia Britannica the year I was born and I grew up literally reading it from A to Z. I was a much better student and had a much larger vocabulary than most other kids my age because of it. When you are correcting your Teachers grammar and facts in third grade, and getting in trouble all the time for like I did, it should tell you something. For my money, The Encyclopedia Britannica is the single most reputable printed (and online) general reference there is. All the others are shallow incomplete copies. That just came out of me, sorry. |
| ColonelPanik Jan 28, 2009 12:04 AM EDT |
Scott: The Britannica has been proven to be less correct than Wikipedia. Everyone who has a complaint about Wikipedia NOW HEAR THIS If there is any good in Wikipedia, you cannot take any credit. If there is any bad in Wikipedia, you get the blame. How do you spell C o m m u n i t y? |
| Scott_Ruecker Jan 28, 2009 12:15 AM EDT |
That is only because it is updated much more quickly with current and (most of the time) more accurate info, for the 1970's and 1980's (when I was growing up) it was the best of the best, hands down. Sorry Colonel, you'll never get me to say a bad thing about The Encyclopedia Britannica, even if you are right..;-) |
| perspectoff Jan 28, 2009 1:56 AM EDT |
"Why, anybody can have a brain. That's a very mediocre commodity. Every pusillanimous creature that crawls on the Earth or slinks through slimy seas has a brain. Back where I come from, we have universities, seats of great learning, where men go to become great thinkers. And when they come out, they think deep thoughts and with no more brains than you have! But they have one thing you haven't got - a diploma. Therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Universitatus Committeatum E Pluribus Unum, I hereby confer upon you the honorary degree of Th. D...that's Doctor of Thinkology." But his brain is only made of straw! So, once he has his Doctor of Thinkology, is he certified to edit Wikipedia? |
| gus3 Jan 28, 2009 2:13 AM EDT |
According to the late great Randy Pausch, who actually did write an article for the World Book Encyclopedia, the quality controls in WBE are no better than those in Wikipedia. |
| Sander_Marechal Jan 28, 2009 3:05 AM EDT |
Quoting:Edits need to be reviewed by parties that actually understand the topics at hand. Yes, but some review is better than no review at all. I don't think the currently proposed system is the best solution, but it's a step in the right direction. |
| jacog Jan 28, 2009 4:02 AM EDT |
Well, simply spotting a fact that has no references cited and flagging it as such would already help. I like Wikipedia, I really do. But unfortunately the planet is riddled with a rather hefty collection of jerks and stupid people. |
| DiBosco Jan 28, 2009 5:03 AM EDT |
Quoting: Now that's an idea. If Wikipedia was edited for accuracy like that, say by known experts in their respective fields, Wikipedia would become the ONLY reference ever used... Isn't that exactly how Google Knoll was set up to work? All seems to have gone quiet with that. |
| Sander_Marechal Jan 28, 2009 9:25 AM EDT |
Knol is different. With Knol an author/expert owns an article. It's their property (and ad income!). With Wikipedia multiple experts can (and should) contribute and maintain articles they have expertise on. Google Knol is more of a turf-war with multiople experts starting articles on the same topic, competing with each other. |
| TxtEdMacs Jan 28, 2009 9:32 AM EDT |
jacog, I challenge you to a duel for insulting me! Only by taking your life will I be assuaged of this blatant slander: Quoting: ... the planet is riddled with a rather hefty collection of jerks and stupid people. Whereas everywhere I go I am known as that "Smart A**"!! How Dare You? So it's Epees at Dawn, enjoy your last day ... YBT |
| jacog Jan 28, 2009 9:36 AM EDT |
Can we duel with banjos instead? |
| TxtEdMacs Jan 28, 2009 10:50 AM EDT |
jacog, I guess you get to live another day. Banjos? Don't even know how to hold one ... looking at a picture, hmm could make a nice club. And it's reinforced with metal strings, could work. Ok next time, you die with a crushing blow from a banjo. [The crazy things I have to do to get some reasonable fight time.] YBT |
| Scott_Ruecker Jan 28, 2009 12:12 PM EDT |
Now listen here Banjo death squads... lol |
| TxtEdMacs Jan 28, 2009 1:14 PM EDT |
Scott,Quoting:Banjo [D]eath [S]quads I like the ring of that phrase, it should be set to music. We will open on Broadway and literally Knock 'em Dead. YBT P.S. By the way, how expensive are those banjos? Don't want to go over budget or be too stingy during rehearsals. That would be penny wise and pound foolish. |
| TxtEdMacs Jan 28, 2009 1:41 PM EDT |
jacor, Ok, dueling banjos: http://vimeo.com/1049033 , but it ends abruptly. Match that! Actually here is the one I prefer: http://vimeo.com/2539741 A sticker would say, however, most of those aren't banjos. But beats the crap out of most others I have seen. YBT |
| theboomboomcars Jan 28, 2009 1:56 PM EDT |
Txt I have to say I was somewhat disappointed, I thought you found a video of two people clubbing each other with banjos. |
| Sander_Marechal Jan 28, 2009 2:29 PM EDT |
@boomboom: You mean like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7hvqtSzokw http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/amc0643l.jpg |
| ColonelPanik Jan 28, 2009 2:32 PM EDT |
Banjo Hero? |
| theboomboomcars Jan 28, 2009 2:50 PM EDT |
That is a great cartoon Sander. |
| TxtEdMacs Jan 28, 2009 3:25 PM EDT |
boom.. boom*,Quoting:I thought you found a video of two people clubbing each other with banjos. How could I? That is my Business Innovation, where I fully intend to protect my IP [Intellectual Property (for the noobs among us)], by patenting the hell out of it, Trademarking and vile Threats of dismemberment to any and all that have nefarious thoughts about Mine. Cash Flow: whatever the cause of the mayhem, I visit the injured themselves or the bereaved families (where the action was more permanent) with assorted muscle and collect my fees from those least able to defend themselves. Soon I will be rich and a model citizen with politicians dying to take my money to pass any laws to protect my august status. Now I warn one and all: You may all look on with envy, but I allow none of you to touch. YBT * why do I find my self addressing you as bomb ... bomb? |
| theboomboomcars Jan 28, 2009 5:40 PM EDT |
Quoting:Threats of dismemberment With banjos? Quoting:why do I find my self addressing you as bomb ... bomb? Because bombs go boom? |
| NoDough Jan 29, 2009 5:38 PM EDT |
Sorry for the late post. Hard to find time to keep up with things these days. Did not read the article, but my take on this thread is that most of you believe wikipedia's problem is that it accepts content from too many sources. Here's why I disagree and why I almost never use wikipedia. http://www.libraryplanet.com/2008/04/17/wikipedia |
| Sander_Marechal Jan 29, 2009 6:13 PM EDT |
NoDough: That's not smart of you. Not that I disagree with that link you posted, but it shows that you use Wikipedia wrong. Don't regard Wikipedia as an authorative source. Use it as a giant pool if information that makes an excellent starting point for your own research. "Don't believe everything you read on the internet" still holds true if you're on Wikipedia. |
| NoDough Jan 29, 2009 6:59 PM EDT |
Sander, You missed the point. Everyone believes wikipedia to be what it advertised itself to be: a forum where anyone can contribute, where the information isn't limited to just one viewpoint or just one person's perspective. People believe this so much that they complain about too many viewpoints being included. In my experience, and as the provided link demonstrates, it's just the opposite. |
| Sander_Marechal Jan 29, 2009 7:07 PM EDT |
Then put the matter to someone higher in the food chain. |
| Scott_Ruecker Jan 29, 2009 7:18 PM EDT |
Exactly Sander, submit it for a 'review', whatever form that takes its gotta be better than the none that happens now, and then make the changes necessary for it to be worthy of publishing. |
| ColonelPanik Jan 29, 2009 9:04 PM EDT |
Sander, Scott: Thats what I said, about halfway up this page! If you think there is a mistake, report it, please. Wikipedia only works if we do. |
| Scott_Ruecker Jan 30, 2009 12:33 AM EDT |
I agree, And I do report stuff I see and wrong and make changes I see to pages I visit that need it. I really do. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!